- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 36264 OF 2013 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.B.R. GANGAMMA, W/O. B.M.RUDRAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O. VADEYARA BASAPURA VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. DEAD BY LR'S 1(A) SMT SEEMA W/O. DR.DINESH.N.R., D/O.B.M RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. JAGALUR VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK - 577530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 1(B) SRI.B.R.MALLAIAH S/O. B.M. RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. VADEYARA BASAPURA VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK-577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 2. SRI.N.PRASANNA S/O.RUDRAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O.JIGALI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 701. 2. SMT. BASAMMA, W/O. SHIVAPUJI KARIBASAPPA, ALIAS SANNA KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, UKKADAGATRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. SMT.DANAMMA, W/O.SHIVAPUJI KARIBASAPPA, ALIAS SANNA KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O.UKKADAGATRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. R-5 AND R-6 ARE TREATED AS L.R'S BY THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2017. 4. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O. RUDRAIAH MULIMANI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. SANNA SANGAPURA VILLAGE, RANIBENNURU TALUK - 58115 HAVERI DISTRICT. 5. SMT.GOWRAMMA, W/O.JIGALERA NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O.UKKADAGATRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TLAUK - 577 530, DEAD BY LR'S - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 5(A) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O KAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O. G. MALLANA GOWDRA, GOVINAHALLY VILLAGE - 577 530, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5(B) SRI. GADIGAPPA S/O. JIGALER NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. KUKKUWADA VILLAGE - 577 001, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5(C) SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. SURESH SANNAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARES, R/O. UKKADAGATRI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 6. SMT.GADIGAMMA ALIAS SHANTHA, W/O. M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. KUKKUWADA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT 577 701 DEAD BY LR'S 6(A) M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, S/O. UJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 6(B) SRI. SHADAKSHARI, S/O. M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 6(C) SRI. LANKESH S/O. M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 6(D) SMT. MAMATHA, D/O. M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF: VIDYANAGARA, A-BLOCK, BEHIND TAPCMS HARIHARI 577 601. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 7. SRI.RAMANAGOWDA PATIL , S/O.VEERABHADRAIAH PATIL, SINCE DIED REP. BY 7(A) NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA KAGINALLI, AGED 74 YEARS, R/O. GUDDADAMADHAPURA, HEREKERURU TALUK - 581 111, HAVRI DISTRICT. 7(B) GADIGAYYA, S/O.LATE.RAMANAGOWDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. UKKADAGATHRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 7(C) KARIBASAIAH, S/O.LATE. RAMANAGOWDA PATI. AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. UKKADAGATHRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 8. SRI. CHANNAPPA, S/O. BASAPPA, SINCE DEAD REP. BY - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 8(A) AJJAPPA S/O. DANAPPA GOUDER, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, R/O. UKKADAGATHRI, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 8(B) SMT.SHAKUNTALA, W/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA, DANDENAVAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. GUDDADAMADAPUR VILLAGE, HIREKERUR TALUK - 581 111, HAVERI DISTRICT. 9. SMT.GANGAMMA W/O. HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. HALYALA VILLAGE, TADAKANAHALLI POST, HIREKERUR TALUK - 581 111, HAVERI DISTRICT. 10. SRI. DASAPPA, S/O.BASAPPA, MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, UKKADAGATRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK 577 503, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 11. SRI.ERAPPA S/O BASAPPA SINCE DEAD REP. BY 11(A) SMT.HANUMAKKA, W/O. BARAPPA GOUDER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.UKKADAGATHRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 11(B) SRI SHEKAR GOWDA , S/O BARAPPA GOUDAR SINCE DEAD REP. BY 11(B)(A) RATHNAMMA W/O. SHEKHAR GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. UKKADAGATHRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK - 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 11(B)(B) PRASHANTHA, S/O.SHEKHAR GOWDA, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O.UKKADAGATHRI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK 577 530, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 (A-C); SRI. R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED LRS OF R-6(A-D); SRI.NATARAJ.G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7(C), R-7 (A & B) & R-11(B)(A); V/O DTD:3/11/17-R-5 AND R-6 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R-3; R-4, R-8(A), R-11(A) AND R-11(B) (b) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD:29/03/16-PETITION AGAINST R-8(B) & R-9 STANDS DISMISSED; V/O DTD: 23/07/15-PETITION AGAINST R-2, R-10 & R-11 ABATES; V/O DTD:30/03/21-WP STANDS DISMISSED AS AGAINST R-6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.13 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN MA 8/2000 VIDE ANNX-K QUASH THE DECREE DATED 24.7.13, DRAWN IN - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 MA NO.8/2000 BY THE PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNX-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are assailing the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, in M.A. No.8/2000, on the file of Principal District Judge, Davanagere. In terms of the impugned order, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub Division, Davanagere, to hold an enquiry as to who is the legal representative of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa, in respect of property bearing Survey No.12/4 of Ukkadagatri Village, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking through the facts of the case would contend that in respect of several properties, including the property - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 bearing Survey No.12/4 referred to above, earlier there was a re-grant order in favour of Sri.G.Karibasappa and pursuant to said re-grant order of 1975, official memorandum was also issued. He would further submit that the contesting respondents of this petition have filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, challenging the order of re-grant and said appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the said order was questioned before this Court by filing writ petition. 4. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, who heard the case fresh and passed the appropriate order. The said order of the learned Single Judge was subject matter of the appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2538/2009. The Division Bench, in the aforementioned writ appeal by the order dated 22.11.2010 allowed the writ appeal in part and remitted the matter to the learned District Judge to give findings on three specific - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 questions find by the said order. Those questions are as under: ''i) Who was the holder of the Village Office as on the appointed date? ii) Who are the legal representatives of Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa entitled to regrant even without filing an application under the Act? iii) In terms of the provisions of the Act, who is the person entitled for regrant of the aforesaid land?'' On remand, the learned District Judge heard the parties and he has given a finding that the property originally belonged to Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. However, he has come to the conclusion that the Court is not in a position to ascertain as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in light of the observation made by the learned District Judge. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that finding that the contesting respondents are not the legal representatives of the deceased- Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa has attained finality, as such, the further remand to Assistant Commissioner to find out the legal representatives of the deceased- Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa was not warranted. It is his further submission that there are only two claimants, namely the petitioners and the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents are not the legal representatives of deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. By default, the Court ought to have held, the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa as no other 3rd party claimant in respect of the aforementioned property. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would contend that there is no finding given - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 by the learned District Judge to hold that the contesting respondents are not the legal representatives of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. The Learned District Judge has held that there is no material on record to conclusively arrive at a finding as to who are the legal representatives of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Thus, the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to allow the parties to lead evidence in support of the claim. It is urged the contention that the finding that the contesting respondents are not the legal representatives of deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa is erroneous and such a finding is not recorded by the learned District Judge. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. On going through the impugned judgment, particularly the observations in paragraph No.9, it is noticed that the learned District Judge has given a finding as he is not in a position to give a clear finding as to who - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 are the legal representatives of the deceased-Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa and for this reason, the matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to enable the parties to lead evidence to establish the claim that they are the persons who are eligible for re-grant. 10. This Court has perused the records from the impugned order. It is noticed that the learned District Judge has given a finding that the property in question belonged to Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would refer to Annexure-R1, which is an extract of kachcha hissa patti maintained by the Revenue Department. The entry for the year 1948, in respect of Survey No.12/4 measuring 5 acres 6 guntas, stands in the name of Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Annexure-R2 is the extract of pakka book of Ukkadagatri Village. The said extract also revealed 5 acres 6 guntas in the name of Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. 11. Thereafter, the sale transactions are taken place in the year 1948 and 1952. In the year 1952, the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 property was repurchased by Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Based on these documents, the learned District Judge has concluded that Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa is the holder of the property. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend by referring to Annexure-R6, the record of the rights for the year 1970 and 1971 that G.Karibasappa's name is entered in the property records. It is relevant to note that in the cross-examination, RW-1 has stated that Basappa’s father’s name is Mahadevappa. But it is noticed from the records that the purchaser’s father’s name is Veerabhadrappa. Under these circumstances, the finding that Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa was the holder of the property is an erroneous finding cannot be accepted at all. It is based on the revenue records starting from 1928. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged referring to paragraph No.9 in the plaint filed by the contesting respondents that the averments in the plaint would indicate that the plaintiff was an authorized holder - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6623 WP No. 36264 of 2013 and not a holder. This Court is of the view that the claim that he was an authorized holder does not make any difference given the fact that in the name of Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa was found in the property records since 1928. Since the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, enables both the holder as well as the authorized holder to make a claim for re-grant of the land, the contention based on the averment made in the plaint is of no consequence. 14. Accordingly, the write petition is dismissed. 15. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall hold enquiry to ascertain as to whether the contesting respondents are the legal heirs of late.Shivapuji Sanna Karibasappa. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29